In Depth

The Indiana Supreme Court is being asked to take a legal malpractice case in which an Indianapolis law firm got hit with an
$18 million verdict two years ago.

Attorneys representing law firm Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe filed a petition for transfer with the state's highest
court Monday in Frederick W. Dennerline III, et al. v. Jim Atterholt, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Indiana, No.
49A04-0610-CV-557. This move comes following the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in May that upheld the verdict handed
down by a Marion Circuit Court jury in August 2006.

The case stems from a failed health plan that left 8,200 Hoosiers with unpaid medical bills. The jury found the firm liable
for failing to notify trustees about growing financial losses in the Indiana Construction Industry Trust, which was created
by a dozen construction-related companies to cover non-union employees. During trial, partner Dennerline was shown to have
knowledge of the financial woes and the jury determined that amounted to legal malpractice.

On appeal, the firm raised six issues that included preserving error about a legal malpractice expert's testimony, and whether
the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on discovery motions and one of the four legal theories used relating to legal-malpractice
liability. The majority affirmed on all the issues, but Judge Carr Darden dissented on one issue regarding the jury's finding
on Dennerline's 100 percent fault. He noted the insurance department should not receive what he saw as a "windfall" but added
the state agency should be able to collect any legal costs, including attorneys' fees and interest, for prosecuting this action
and any unsettled claims.

The intermediate appellate court in mid-July denied a rehearing petition, and Hammond-based Eichhorn & Eichhorn, which represents
Dennerline and the firm, sent the transfer petition to the appellate clerk's office by certified mail Monday. The clerk's
office had not listed it on its docket by this afternoon.

In the 21-page petition obtained by Indiana Lawyer, attorneys urge the justices to consider four questions for transfer: whether
the liability claim presented at trial and relied on by the Court of Appeals is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and unsupported by evidence; whether the judgment and non-party defendant settlements exceed the provable damages
without statutory authorization; whether Dennerline's due process rights were violated by the use of a liquidation proceeding
order in establishing the damages amount; and whether the trial court committed reversible error in prohibiting discovery
and allowing a witness a week before trial.

Since the verdict, the 45-year-old firm has given the insurance commissioner rights to sue its legal malpractice carrier,
ProAssurance and parent company ProNational Insurance, in a separate federal civil suit. Filed in June, that pending case
accuses the company of refusing to settle the case and alleges bad faith and breach of contract. The insurance company has
filed a motion to dismiss that case because the state courts' appellate review isn't complete and that document points out
that a transfer request was coming in the state appeal; the federal judge hasn't issued a decision on that.

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.